dane,

If you bother to look through Breivik's Manifesto you will see all the same arguments posted on these threads, particularly the alleged "hate" aspect of Islam.

The only difference between Breivik and many others is that, although he wasn't technically insane he took an extraordinary step that rational people wouldn't.

The fact that he wasn't a Muslim made absolutely no difference in preventing his actions.

If you can generalise to the extent that Islam is only about hatred and that they somehow carry out murders on a global scale based on that hatred then I can suggest that historically most murders have been carried out by non-Muslims against all religions and that Wilders is part of the problem and not a solution.

“This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.”

… which they do by criminalizing freedom of association. What they're saying is, they know that if people were free to choose, and they know that if social relations were based on consent, they wouldn't get the result they want, so they resort to politics, as a means to force and threaten people into complying with their moral opinions.

The only way your argument could hold up, is if there were no enforcement behind the “rights” that feminists seek. If all feminists did was try to persuade people, then your argument would hold good. But they don’t. They advocate the use of aggressive force against people to bully them into comply with their moral opinions when they know that those people don't agree, and when those people, left to themselves, are not aggressing against the person or property of anyone. Therefore your argument is wrong.

Why don’t you answer my question: is it okay for a group to forcibly impose their moral opinions on others, so long as they use the democratic process as their instrument of enforcement; or not?

@ JKJ - where do you want to go with this? If you have a problem with ".. equal opportunities for women in education and employment.”
then you do have a much more serious problem.

Political process in a democracy is not about "force" and "threaten". Your definition of politics is flawed.

"Why don’t you answer my question: is it okay for a group to forcibly impose their moral opinions on others, so long as they use the democratic process as their instrument of enforcement; or not?"

Your question is loaded and based on a flawed understanding of the state we live in, of our constitution and laws and the democratic process itself.

Of course it is OK to make and enforce laws against murder, rape and theft. Of course it is OK to do so using the democratic process.
Would you not agree?

BUT: Politics doesn't enforce law. Police and courts do enforce law.
This is why we have a (mostly) clear separation of powers in a democracy. And this is why under Islamic sharia there is no such separation, indeed under sharia all three powers of the state rest with sharia, and those who interpret it.

This is what needs to be understood before asking more loaded questions, or equating feminism with Islam.

Give up Raoul,
You live in the "land of should", the rest of us live in the "land of is".
Feminism is about surrendering one's agency to the state and it's appointed experts and cadres on penalty of legal sanction.
Islam is about surrendering one's agency to the Ummah and it's appointed Mullahs and Imams on penalty of legal sanction.
In practice Feminism in Western society achieves it's goals by the use of force (Donglegate anyone) just as Islam would hope to in the future, the only difference is that Feminism is a pervasive state apparatus at this point and Islam has yet to achieve most of it's goals.

@Jay - and who would be that "rest of us"? The united masses of two chaps holding a grudge against the feminine half of this planet?
Good luck with that, happy to give up this 'discussion'. Stay well.

“Political process in a democracy is not about "force" and "threaten".”

Politics is the process of deciding what the State - the legal monopoly of force - will threaten or enforce.

“If you have a problem with ".. equal opportunities for women in education and employment.” then you do have a much more serious problem.”

Equal opportunities could be achieved by consensual action if people agreed with the feminists. The feminists know they don’t agree, that's why they advocate forcing and threatening people into obedience, so stop misrepresenting the real issue.

“Your question is loaded and based on a flawed understanding ...”

Nothing you have said has demonstrated so. My question is impartial to both feminism and Islam. It’s your understanding that is flawed, because you try to affirm that feminism should be enforced, and deny that it is enforced, in the same breath.

And the reason you refuse to answer my question is because you know that answering will prove you self-contradictory.

“Of course it is OK to make and enforce laws against murder, rape and theft. … Would you not agree?"

Yes because all those involve people aggressing against the person or property of others. Preferring a person of one sex rather than another, does not. Therefore you have not shown any more ethical justification for the use of force to back up feminism than Islam.

“BUT: Politics doesn't enforce law. Police and courts do enforce law.”

So what? Irrelevant. The point is, feminists advocate the use of the State to force people into complying with their opinions, because feminists don’t agree with their values, when those people are not aggressing against the person or property of anyone. It’s aggressive intolerance.

“If you have a problem with .. equal opportunities for women …then you do have a much more serious problem.”

In other words, if one doesn't agree with feminism, one has no right to be free from being violated by the state to enforce one's obedience.

The political feminists and socialists are on no better moral footing than the aggressive chauvinist Muslims.